As a debate judge, I am a critic of argument. This means I will vote on any well-supported, well-defended argument that is extended on the flow through the last speech. If debaters want to put me in a paradigm, they can do that by making arguments in support of that. If they don't, I will default to my own brand of policy-making.

This means I will evaluate the world of the affirmative (the world after the plan) versus the world of the negative (the world in the status quo, or after the counterplan, or with the critique, or whatever they choose to advocate) and decide which world stands a better chance of helping more people.

This means the negative probably needs a DA or a solvency turn to win my ballot. If neg just mitigates the case, arguing "aff probably won't solve," "aff harms are overstated," etc. then the mere risk of helping people is enough to outweigh the risk of doing nothing at all. If the neg proves that aff risks increasing the problems in the world, I am likely to vote negative.

Regardless of which type of debate you prefer, please provide overviews to frame your arguments in the rebuttals. I also strongly encourage impact comparisons. In other words, make sure to tell me which arguments are of paramount concern for me to evaluate. These comparisons are usually even stronger if you can explain why you still win, even if your opponents should win some of their important arguments.

I will vote on procedural arguments such as topicality and critiques if they are won on the flow. In the absence of good arguments to the contrary, procedurals come before substantive issues like solvency and DAs.

Speed is not a problem, but be sure you are communicating with me and with your opponents. If you are not, I will let you know.

Tag team cross-examination is fine, but I frown on one partner dominating another that is, interrupting a partner repeatedly. Speaker points will suffer if this occurs.